| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
ActiveWin.com: Chat at 10 PM EST | |
|
||
| Time: 19:37 EST/00:37 GMT | News Source: ActiveWin.com | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Just a reminder that we are having our regular online chat tonight @ 10 PM EST! As always, you can use our chat program here at the site or you can use mIRC or any other IRC client. Just remember that the server is activewin.com and the channel is #Lobby. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 160 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:24:52 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 6859 (12.219.23.70) at 3/17/2003 8:24:28 PM |
| In other news... Saddam given 48 hours by President Bush to pack up and go.... |
| #2 By 37 (66.168.16.248) at 3/17/2003 8:37:19 PM |
| In even better news, I give Bush 48 hours to pack up and go... |
| #3 By 665 (64.126.91.172) at 3/17/2003 8:54:23 PM |
| If this doesn't generate comments, I'm not sure what will. |
| #4 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 3/17/2003 9:45:10 PM |
|
48 hours to burnination!
http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail58.html Many kickings of a$$ will ensue! |
| #5 By 1868 (141.133.155.214) at 3/17/2003 11:16:52 PM |
| #4 I love Homestarrunner, its one of the best sites ever. Rock on. |
| #6 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 3/17/2003 11:21:26 PM |
|
#5, yep. Ah yes, it's always good to hear someone giving moral equivalence between Bush, the leader of the free world and Democracy, and a Saddam, a tyrant, a Criminal against humanity and potentially a committer of genocide.
Sure, yeah, Bush is the bad guy, uh huh. We have 17 UN resolutions saying to use force against Saddam, we have 12 years which he has continually defied those resolutions, we have the surrender agreement which he has violated, we have U.S. Congressional authorization in about 3 different situations, we have World support through those UN resolutions, etc, etc, etc,. We have every reason why we should've done this in about 1994-6 but Clinton was too busy receiving hummers in the oval office. He did give token support by lobbing 450 Cruise missles at baby-food factories and Aspirin factories in 1996 (or was it 1998? can't remember). However, in Clinton's defense, I do believe that those baby-food and Aspirin factories really were chemical weapons laboratories. The will and the resolve of the free world has been challenged yet again by a tyrant, and slaughterer of men and women, and the world has again said it is unable and unwilling to stand up to these crimes, and _AGAIN_ the US must take a leadership role in preserving the sanctity of free democracy and the sovreignty of the U.S. as a free country and a democratically elected government. When will you people understand that as long as there is people like Saddam in the world, there cannot be peace? You say you want Peace and no war in Iraq, but you don't understand is that all you do is bring the war to our shores. "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance", Thomas Jefferson. Price comes with a pricetag of war and violence sometimes because there will always be people who challenge the peace. Why do you think you have Police cars in your neighborhood? The only reason you don't have people breaking into your house every night and terrorizing your family is because there are people WITH GUNS who are sworn to protect you and sometimes they have to SHOOT AND KILL PEOPLE to preserve that peace. Yet you have no problem with that. Can't you see how duplicitous your thoughts are? In order to ensure peace both at home and around the world and especially in the middle east, people who would oppose the Free World like Saddam and potentially North Korea, have to know that if they challenge the Free World, we will strike them down to preserve the peace. That's what has to happen. Unfortunately, it seems that most of the Free World would rather have peace with no violence, not understanding that that is impossible and their peace will soon die without enforcing it. |
| #7 By 6859 (12.219.23.70) at 3/18/2003 12:06:57 AM |
|
Some people say "War is not the answer," but sometimes, I'm afraid, that war is the only answer applicable. Imagine, if you can, not fighting against Hitler or turning a blind eye to the tragic events of Pearl Harbor and the events of recent memory in September.
To do so would have doomed all Europe, led to the elimination of European Jews (all of them and not the 6-million or so that died), and it would have sent a clear message to the world that the US is ripe for targetting and won't respond out of fear and weakness. There are certain nations now, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, just to name a few, that actively are seeking weapons of mass destruction: Iran is buying 90 tons of Uranium from Russia (gee, I'll give you 2 gesses what that'll be used for), North Korea is playing games while the world is distracted; and Iraq and that situation is well known to all. People call Bush a cowboy, alluding to his sometimes uncontrollable nature; but at the same time there are other nations that have not the will to resist temptation and the lures of quick power that are playing with weapons that they should not. Things like VX, nukes, and bio-warfare. The world is not safe; it never was. And since we Americans are responsible for releasing the nuclear spectre upon the world, it comes to us to protect the world from our unfortunate progeny. My fear is not that we will not eliminate Saddam, but my fear is that once we have, we will not have the willpower to extract ourselves from the situation, and that will lead to the arab world's disapproval. Make no mistake, most arabs know Saddam is a liar and a killer, they do not trust him any further than they could throw him; but he is an arab, like they are, and it is unseemly for arab to be at arab throat, and even more unacceptible is for arab to die at the hands of outsiders. The Koran calls all muslims to defend one another from the infidel. This is what will happen. This war, when it starts, may cause us to have to fight many fronts as the other arab nations heed the call to war led by Saddam. Of course if they do it, they will be destroyed by our firepower; and if they don't they are not true muslims. They too walk a razor's edge. The situation is not fun. And I do not envy the leaders and the soldiers who will enact this new policy. I do not pray, but perhaps I should. |
| #8 By 143 (199.35.33.80) at 3/18/2003 12:47:25 AM |
|
Wow… The propaganda machine has been busy!
>:-) |
| #9 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 3/18/2003 1:39:22 AM |
|
#10: It seems the only propaganda is on the left or from the anti-war movement. They would have you not believe anything in the media and convince you that Bush is the next hitler and Saddam isn't so bad and there's nothing to be afraid of.
But, don't believe Bush, if you don't want to. Believe the past 3-4 presidents who have all said about the same thing as Bush is saying now about Saddam. In fact, the architect of the "Regime Change" doctrine is none other than your beloved Bill Clinton. In fact, his NSC had all the plans laid out and the timetables and such, Bush just executed it. It's about 10 years too late, though, but better late than never. |
| #10 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 3/18/2003 1:54:56 AM |
|
Wow, it is so very interesting if not stereotypical to see our resident neocon pundits equate the dislike of Bush with support for Hussein. Perhaps like France they have now become irrelevant? What is the point in responding to them, they do not read the message anyway.
Cthulhu - Ahh, finally some intelligent commentary! "iacta alea est"... we have now crossed the Rubicon. This is an interesting new policy direction, and it has little to do with Hitler by comparison. Quite clearly Iraq is intended to be a staging area for military bases in the middle east. It's a strategic location, and we can get away with the invasion for the most part.... unlike trying to invade Saudi Arabia. From this location, the obvious hope is to put the rest of the middle-east in check from the strength of american military power, either through threat or invasion. Call it Pax Americana, if you will. I actually am of the belief that Arabs understand power and threat much moreso than diplomacy, so following through with military might will have a very quieting effect on their disapproval. It's an interesting strategy, using the point that American military power is so decisive that we should no longer have to put up with third rate dictators. Perhaps it will work. Next up will be North Korea, then probably Iran and/or Cuba. This would certainly explain the lack of interest on the part of the Administration with North Korea other than to move carrier groups and bombers to the region. We'll see how it plays out. I think right now those of us who are centrist in the US just have to be resolved to this fight. There is a positive side, of course... It's sort of a win-win, because if it goes well we are rid of Hussein. If it goes poorly we are rid of the neocon's in American politics. |
| #11 By 6859 (12.219.23.70) at 3/18/2003 8:25:46 AM |
|
"they say get rid of saddam but not through war"
If anyone had a valid idea for exactly how to accomplish that feat, it was either nixed at high levels or it never existed in the first place. My bet is that there never was a way to remove Saddam from power without force. |
| #12 By 37 (66.82.20.150) at 3/18/2003 9:34:50 AM |
|
Liberal? Try again! Bawahaahahaha!
BTW, pack up and go to France? Why not Canada? Why not Germany? Why not Mexico? Why not Korea? Why not.... I could keep going and going and going. I think Bush and Saddam need to be ousted. Bush will be ousted in the next election. Saddam needs to be ousted by other means unless we have more allied support and UN support. LOL @ #7 Daz. You are so wrong with your conclusions, but you are entitled to your opinion. Ever wonder why 90% of the world including the US doesn't want this war? |
| #13 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/18/2003 1:20:58 PM |
|
steven1832 - "They want to be recognized as a leader on the world stage and dont like a world dominated by the US."
It's sort of like a world dominated by Microsoft. It's not all bad, as long as they are reasonably listening to the consumer. "I have heard other people say that the US is trying to create a empire in the MidEast." No, they are right. But not in the classic sense of empire. We're clearly invading Iraq because it's strategic importance in oil production. Oil is a vital part of US economic interests. But furthermore, Iraq has been a destabilizing force in the region so it's clearly in the interest of the middle-east peace for him to be ousted. While most of the claims that Bush has laid out against Hussein have turned out to be false rhetoric, Iraq does clearly support Hezbollah with funding sources and other equally problematic groups. With Iraq firmly under our control, we will be able to setup military bases that make our presence felt in the region. The hope is that this will cause other changes to occur. It may just be wishful thinking, nobody knows. I don't trust this administration to be honest with us, but like FDR said we must above all try something, anything. The key is, if it turns out to be the wrong answer(like Vietnam) we must be frank and honest in admitting we were wrong.(something that did not happen with Vietnam) "The reason that a large part of the world is not supporting us is that the world seems not willing to take action until there is an aggressive act." This has generally been the accepted moral justification for war. This idea of prevention is a new one. I do not know if it's wrong, or right, but it is a slippery slope. "Plus I think they are scared. It is much easier for people to put up with an the current state of affairs then proceed off into the unknown. " Yet from seeing the responses from people like parker, fear is certainly a large part of the motivation for supporting the war. Again, I'm not against a war to oust Hussein. What I fear is that the way this was done will result in long term diplomatic and economic impact to the US. There's an awful lot of hubris rather than critical thinking and we've rolled over a lot of friends. |
| #14 By 37 (66.82.20.150) at 3/18/2003 2:50:45 PM |
|
#20 "Wrong as usual. "
Ahh, but I am not. I see you obtained your tainted information from right wing news source, ABC and the Washington Post. On top of that, the poll was conducted with 510 people! The majority of which were republicans. 88% of Republicans voted for war! No surprise there. Less than 50% of the democrats voted for war. In fact, over 70% of America already thought made his decision to go to war well before this most recent speech. All of which felt they had no say in the matter. Sorry, but if you do a much broader poll, you will find that the MAJORITY of the US doesn't want to go to war. Be sure to poll NON republicans as well ;-) "Seven in 10 said they supported Bush's televised call to go to war without the blessing of the United Nations unless Saddam Hussein and his sons leave Iraq within 48 hours. " ROFL! 7 in 10 Toyota owners would buy a toyota again too! Those republicans are soooo sneaky! lol "Sure you do. I'll buy that you equate Bush with Saddam." In some respects they are the same. They are both hypocrytes. They both feel the need to be more powerful than they are. They both think the answer to everything is war, killing and more war. |
| #15 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/18/2003 3:44:29 PM |
|
It's possible I have a dragon in my garage.
But it's more probable that parker has become irrelevant. |
| #16 By 6859 (206.156.242.36) at 3/18/2003 4:20:19 PM |
|
Steven1832 said: "There is a recent article in Time Magazine which says that the prime modivation of France has really nothing to do about Iraq but all to do about opposing the US. They want to be recognized as a leader on the world stage and dont like a world dominated by the US. "
In reply I quote CNN.COM: "European Commission President Romano Prodi said he was saddened rather than angry with the candidates because their pro-Americanism was a signal they had failed to understand that the EU is more than a mere economic union." Yup, you read that right. The EU exists as an entity for one purpose: to oppose and offset the power of the US. It was designed from the core to be anti-American, led by a Franco-German alliance out of fear. Additionally France has a multi-billion dollar agreement with Saddam, should Saddam be ousted France loses any chance of getting their return on that "investment." And for those lamentable few who still think this is about oil: Do you know what percentage of US oil consumption comes from Iraq? 17% We could make that up by getting more from Canada, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, or anyplace else with ease. Now if that percentage was higher, perhaps that argument would be sound, but it's not--so it isn't. We attack now (or soon) to save more lives later. It's because Saddam is "friggin in the riggin." |
| #17 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/18/2003 6:14:44 PM |
|
parker - Why do you continue to babble?
Your continued insults have done nothing but turn off everyone from your positions, and you certainly aren't convincing anyone because we've all stopped reading your babble. Maybe if you'd stop accusing everybody who mildly disagrees with you of being a Nazi or a Communist, you might find some support in this world. Otherwise, as long as you keep posting with the same vitriol I am going to keep making fun of you. |
| #18 By 37 (66.168.16.248) at 3/18/2003 6:19:53 PM |
|
Sorry Parker, but your polls don't mean jack!
Here ya go: Pew Research study released today... The latest survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project interviewed more than 5,500 people in the United States and eight other countries from March 10-17. http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=175 Anti-war sentiment and disapproval of President Bush's international policies continue to erode America's image among the publics of its allies. Criticisms of U.S. foreign policy are almost universal. Overwhelming majorities disapprove of President Bush's foreign policy and the small boost he received in the wake of Sept. 11 has disappeared. As a consequence, publics in seven of the eight nations surveyed believe that American policies have a negative effect on their country. Way to go ! And! Is it Bush or America?! http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=681 Outside of Great Britain, the prospect of war in Iraq draws substantial in many cases overwhelming opposition. Among other U.S. allies, publics reject participating in a military coalition against Iraq by much wider margins. The Spanish oppose joining an allied military action against Iraq by more than six-to-one (81%-13%). Fewer than a quarter of Italians and Poles (17%, 21%) favor their governments joining the U.S. and other nations in taking military action against Iraq. It appears that Bush has already lost this war for us before he has even started. |
| #19 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 3/24/2003 10:10:11 PM |
|
While I think the Bush administration exhibited a "my way or the highway" diplomacy style that possibly could have some longer-term effects, I think many people can't see the larger scope of world terror: it has only been less than 60 years since atomic warfare was unleashed on the world. The road blocks for a nation looking to produce or obtain atomic weapons will slowly recede, and the world could easily be held captive by an unstable government, a fundamentalist group, or a rogue operation. Rationalize it any way you want... nations under the grip of a regime such as Hussein's are a threat not only to us, but to the stability of the entire world.
There has been a lot of talk about this apparent change in policy--pre-emptive strikes. That may be true (although it's worthy of debate, since this issue has been going on for a couple decades, now), but it's also true that this is a different world--a world introduced to the potential finality of nuclear warfare--that requires a different method for peace. Hussein may not have nuclear weapons, but the presence of his government is one that festers in the wound of world tension. It may not be possible to win a war on terror without giving rise to other terror, but we are given little choice--either live as supplicants to unstable forces, or try to set up a new world environment and framework for peace. |
| #20 By 143 (65.221.158.230) at 3/31/2003 7:56:53 PM |
|
Watching and listening to international news it seems a common question pops up “Who do you trust? Bush or Saddam”… Yes Saddam has proven to be someone you can’t trust BUT Yes Bush is looked at as someone who won an election on the sly…
Of course that's only one mans inspection of the truth. |
| #21 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/31/2003 9:29:30 PM |
|
It absolutely was a statistical tie, which is why it was all the more important for the election to have been arbitrated fairly and justly.
Unfortunately the election in Florida was mismanaged from the start, with Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris purging eligible voters from the rosters, right up to interfering with the recount process. It is the duty of an officer of the state to act in a manner which is without bias and is in the best interest of all the state's citizens. It was clear that neither Harris or Bush were capable of doing that due to their relationships with GW Bush. They should have stepped out of the picture, but instead they directed the Bush operations right from the Governor's office. It really doesn't matter how much you whine and stamp your feet, parker, it won't change what happened. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 160 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:24:52 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
